Hordes of frantic, desperate, scared people after a huge catastrophe: Much more realistic. Not zombies by definition, but in the same ball park. And if some other country is finally successful in a cyber attack that cripples are financial or power system, this scenario could very well happen.

I'm not trying to sound like a doomsday fanatic but I think it's definitely in the realm of possibility.

quatchi:Silly Jesus: quatchi: Silly Jesus: If you removed a small element of the population from inner cities (and their violence statistics along with them) then we would suddenly be much more in line with your ideal countries. Not sure what your negative reaction to that reality is based on.

"If you remove some of the gun violence statistics we don't really look that bad" is your argument and you're explaining "reality" to me?

Only on Fark, people.

Wow...missed the point completely. I'll use smaller words if I can.

When comparing the violence in different countries, factors aside from number of guns are relevant. In this case, as one example, I brought up culture. Remove a certain culture from our society and the gun violence drops off drastically without even changing the number of guns...hence, the guns aren't the problem. That easier to understand?

Who said guns were the problem?

Guns are inanimate objects. Pretty harmless all by themselves. I mean if we are gonna just get silly here, right?

"Remove a certain culture"? What does that even mean? I thought we were talking about reality here.

I was actually all for the AWB before I realized it wasn't an Attention Whore Ban.

Then when I saw an actual AWB put on the table my first thought was that the Dems were taking a brave (but possibly doomed) political stand here backed up by public opinion increasingly sick of "outlier incidents" (as Wayne LaPierre's crew are fond of calling them) the end result being either A) Get the AWB done which, even if it does nothing to prevent repeats of various mass killings (as I've heard argued here) it would at least send a signal that society at large is increasingly pro gun control or more likely B) Use it as a bargaining chip to try to get other useful things done like improved mental care, removing the gun sale loophole, better tracking of said sales by LEOs, etc leaving both parties with something to take back to their bases.

But that's just like, my opinion, man.

So pass a law, that isn't based in reality as far as effectiveness is concerned, for the sole purpose of it MAYBE being a bargaining chip for passing laws that might actually do some good?

carpbrain:Heh filtered. But a deeper question I have . . . I understand the NRA's stance in general, and I know that they are rather entangled with the gun manufacturers . . . but how can making guns be such a large and influential industry, such that most politicians can't even blink in opposition? It seems like it's not big business, not like banking, or oil, or big agriculture.

Why do you presume they are an industry lobby? They are a group of citizens, millions of them. 4.5 million people. That's over 1% of the country, and those are the ones who pay money each year to be members. Half a million of those are new members since Sandy Hook, myself included, people who want to fight seeing their freedoms taken away. Find other lobbying groups that have that many annual dues-paying members in the US, go ahead. This is something a lot of people feel very passionately about.

I'm a dues-paying member. I'm not a gun manufacturer or dealer. I just want to be able to defend myself and my family, collect firearms I am interested in, and engage in sport shooting in a peaceful fashion. I don't want my guns seized by leftists, or having what guns are legal restricted so that guns that are legal today are felonies tomorrow.

carpbrain:Who is a "gun grabber"? Yet another nutty sentiment that seems to pop out.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." - Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). February 5, 1995, regarding why the 1994 AWB didn't seize existing weapons and magazines.

"Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option." Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY). December 21, 2012, regarding the future of gun control in New York State

EvilRacistNaziFascist:Ablejack: There are ways to address cultural differences without racial implications. Unless it is your intended point that you are being racist.

I have been assured by left- leaning Farkers on numerous occasions that, as a white person, I am implicitly racist, and that as a conservative I am explicitly racist. That's why I find it merely amusing when someone bleats (as they always drearily and predictably do, being the sheep that they are) "racist" at me, because they already played that card long ago. I don't care. All I care about, all anybody should care about, is the truth. A fact cannot be racist.

You may however have misinterpreted what I said. I am not claiming that all black or Hispanic people are criminals, only that those communities contribute a vastly disproportionate share of the crime rate in the US -- a share without which the American crime rate would be closer to that of Canada (as indeed it already is in those mostly- white US states which border Canada, but whose gun laws are far laxer than Canada's) and without which there would be no general worry about the level of violence in the US.

I am not saying that there are no white criminals either; spree shootings such as Newtown -- though contrary to popular myth they are not committed exclusively by whites -- are a disturbing indication of the rise in mental illness among the general population over the past few decades, or perhaps more accurately of a liberal or libertarian unwillingness to intervene in the lives of disturbed people. But they are not a result of the prevalence of guns; we all know that students in the past would on occasion bring guns to schools for rifle clubs or so that they could go hunting after classes, and that they did this without incident or adverse comment. Ultimately most of America's current social pathologies are due to the malign influence of white "progressives" on all aspects of life in the US -- the elevated crime rate among American blacks, for example, is at ...

I myself am a right-winger. Yesterday I was called a racist by a fellow Farker. He called me this because he assumed since I was on the right I automatically believed extremist views.

You, however, are wrong. It doesnt matter if you are black or white, Republican or Democrat, Martian or Reptilian, people commit crime.

The reason why minorities outnumber white people in jail has nothing to do with crime itself; black people dont commit more crimes than white people, they just get caught more often. Cities have bigger police departments. Guess what? Minorities are big city dwellers. These police departments have more resources to police. Compare that to the country side where one could get killed and they will never be able to find the body.

Ablejack:Silly Jesus: If the discussion is about where to re-draw the line, then why is nobody on the Dem side wanting to redraw it based on statistics? If their ultimate goal is saving lives they would be trying to redraw it to get rid of pistols. Big black scary plastic rifles account for less than 3% of gun deaths. Why the hell would they start there?

Because these weapons are chosen for massacres and may be constitutionally banned. Handguns are protected by precedent, but you are right that they are also very dangerous, especially with high capacity magazines, in the wrong hands. That's why Democrats would like to see background checks and lawful registrations as well.

All guns are dangerous. All guns (short of fully automatic ones) are relatively the same in terms of their level of dangerousness. The Supreme Court has drawn the line for purposes of banning a gun at it being unusually dangerous and the government's ability to ban a gun would not rest on whether or not people chose them for massacres. Machine (fully automatic) guns qualify because it is very difficult (if not impossible) to control what you are shooting at with any reasonable level of precision. Therefore it is very likely you would harm someone you did not intend to harm. For similar reasons other armaments of an explosive nature are excepted from the 2nd Amendment because of the indiscriminate nature in which they harm people.

udhq:Amos Quito: Do you really believe that the Founding Fathers were so naive that they believed the government they intended to craft - on the behalf of themselves AND THEIR POSTERITY would somehow be magically immune to the dark, corrupting nature that is everpresent in humanity? That their government would somehow always serve the interests of THE PEOPLE?

If so, you are sorely mistaken. The FF's were revolutionaries - "treasonous criminals" who had just fought bloody hard to rid themselves of the yoke of tyranny, and, with THAT perspective fresh in their minds, can guarantee that the suffered no such delusions.

THAT is why they carefully crafted the Constitution - not to grant power to the central government, but to PREVENT any central government from becoming too powerful.

The founding fathers were rebelling against a government that did not allow for the peaceful transfer of power through elections. Yes, they feared tyranny. Their solution to that was to mandate a regular demonstration of democracy through elections, not violent overthrow.

Yeah, and ships are meant to sail, not sink, yet strangely, they still carry lifeboats, because failures happen. And that is where your interpretation of the Second Amendment is flawed: It was not put in place to grant the People the ability to protect the government, rather the ability, if (God forbid) necessary, to effectively resist

udhq:The constitution is a charter of negative liberties, meaning it's more a list of what government is NOT allowed to do more than a list of rights conferred upon individuals, but at the same time, it is a 2nd draft that provides for a strong, centralized federal government after the failure of the libertarian Articles of Confederation.

Many (most) of the powers usurped by the Federal government today were never authorized under the Constitution, rather, they have been surreptitiously slid in via the convenient interpretations of various "clauses" by increasingly power-hungry and treacherous legislative and executive branches - and rubber-stamped by an equally treacherous judicial branch.

Federal laws have been created and powers usurped by Federal agencies that have no constitutional basis whatsoever. The Constitution was made to be modified - but the processes for doing so were made arduous by design in the hopes that such changes would not be made lightly, but would be given the careful and thoughtful deliberation they deserved, and that they would serve the interests of THE PEOPLE at large.

Over the past six or eight decades, Constitutional constraints have been increasingly seen as little more than irritating obstacles as those with an Authoritarian bent have sought to increasingly consolidate power in Washington, stripping the States AND the People of rights and liberties in the process.

And by far the WORST outcome of this effective nullification of the Constitution is the lethargy and complacency of We The People, as we willingly sacrifice rights and liberty for the sake of perceived safety, security, or even convenience.

And this is why the retention of our right under the Second Amendment is vital above all others: Once The People surrender their ability to physically resist, any "right" that you might THINK you retain - whether it be speech, assembly, habeas corpus, the right to VOTE... or whatever, WILL be at the whim of whichever cadre of Authoritarian asshats manages to seize power.

The Second Amendment is the ONLY right that has teeth, and it is the ONLY right that gives The People the power to defend their interests.

cman:The reason why minorities outnumber white people in jail has nothing to do with crime itself; black people dont commit more crimes than white people, they just get caught more often. Cities have bigger police departments. Guess what? Minorities are big city dwellers. These police departments have more resources to police. Compare that to the country side where one could get killed and they will never be able to find the body.

I think what you said is true to some degree. But that it falls short to explain the breadth of it. Even within cities, minorities are disproportionally prosecuted. I don't think it is entirely a numbers game.

cman:EvilRacistNaziFascist: Ablejack: There are ways to address cultural differences without racial implications. Unless it is your intended point that you are being racist.

I have been assured by left- leaning Farkers on numerous occasions that, as a white person, I am implicitly racist, and that as a conservative I am explicitly racist. That's why I find it merely amusing when someone bleats (as they always drearily and predictably do, being the sheep that they are) "racist" at me, because they already played that card long ago. I don't care. All I care about, all anybody should care about, is the truth. A fact cannot be racist.

You may however have misinterpreted what I said. I am not claiming that all black or Hispanic people are criminals, only that those communities contribute a vastly disproportionate share of the crime rate in the US -- a share without which the American crime rate would be closer to that of Canada (as indeed it already is in those mostly- white US states which border Canada, but whose gun laws are far laxer than Canada's) and without which there would be no general worry about the level of violence in the US.

I am not saying that there are no white criminals either; spree shootings such as Newtown -- though contrary to popular myth they are not committed exclusively by whites -- are a disturbing indication of the rise in mental illness among the general population over the past few decades, or perhaps more accurately of a liberal or libertarian unwillingness to intervene in the lives of disturbed people. But they are not a result of the prevalence of guns; we all know that students in the past would on occasion bring guns to schools for rifle clubs or so that they could go hunting after classes, and that they did this without incident or adverse comment. Ultimately most of America's current social pathologies are due to the malign influence of white "progressives" on all aspects of life in the US -- the elevated crime rate among American blac ...

Ablejack:Dr. Goldshnoz: a fork can be a weapon of mass murder in the right-- or wrong hands.

Many things can be used as a weapon. We are discussing tools that are designed to be weapons.

My point was that labeling certain gun as a "weapon of mass murder" when anything can be used to "mass murder" is asine and falls in line with using big scary words appealing to emotions instead of using facts.

Amos Quito:And this is why the retention of our right under the Second Amendment is vital above all others: Once The People surrender their ability to physically resist, any "right" that you might THINK you retain - whether it be speech, assembly, habeas corpus, the right to VOTE... or whatever, WILL be at the whim of whichever cadre of Authoritarian asshats manages to seize power.The Second Amendment is the ONLY right that has teeth, and it is the ONLY right that gives The People the power to defend their interests.

That's not true. It is only your opinion that your right to bear arms protects you from tyranny moreso than your right to speech, vote, etc.

carpbrain:Heh filtered. But a deeper question I have . . . I understand the NRA's stance in general, and I know that they are rather entangled with the gun manufacturers . . . but how can making guns be such a large and influential industry, such that most politicians can't even blink in opposition? It seems like it's not big business, not like banking, or oil, or big agriculture.

As you mention, the gun industry itself is relatively small compared to things like business, oil, banking, etc. In many cases, it's not the industry that does the lobbying and holds political power (though they do have the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the gun industry trade group, but they don't do as much lobbying) but rather the people. Sure, the NRA gets donations and whatnot from various manufacturers, but the bulk of their funding comes from individual member dues -- they have ~4.5 million paying members and bring in more than $200 million per year from membership dues and other programs they offer (e.g. people paying for training, ranges paying for discounted insurance, etc.). The manufacturers have donated a few tens of millions over the last decades in comparison. Clearly, there's a lot of people who have elected to join the NRA and they are what gives it the political power.

If they're able to get 1% of their members to call their Congresspeople to oppose or support a particular law, that's 45,000 calls. That's nothing to sneeze at. Most members get monthly magazines that have a lot of really useful information (technical and historical stuff, in particular), as well as various editorials from people like Wayne LaPierre (who can frequently be rather nutty -- I'm a member and wish they'd replace him with someone else, but I'm clearly outnumbered), updates on state and national legislation, and political "calls to action". They can really get the message out to a lot of people.

There's quite a few other gun-rights groups like the Gun Owners of America (~300,000 paid members), the Second Amendment Foundation, state-level organizations, etc., though the NRA is the 800lb gorilla in the room and tends to be the name that keeps popping up in the news. The GOA is even more no-compromise than the NRA and they have (according to the numbers at the wikipedia) 10x the number of dues-paying members as one of the biggest anti-gun-rights groups, the Brady Campaign. Other anti-gun-rights groups like Mayors Against Illegal Guns tend to lack the grassroots support of the pro-gun-rights groups: MAIG gets most of its funding from NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the Joyce Foundation, etc. rather than from individual members.

Gun owners tend to be a lot more passionate and active with politics regarding guns, as many consider the right to own guns an important Constitutional right and an important part of American culture. Passionate people in large numbers tend to get the attention of politicians, regardless of the topic involved.

Dr. Goldshnoz:Ablejack: Dr. Goldshnoz: a fork can be a weapon of mass murder in the right-- or wrong hands.

Many things can be used as a weapon. We are discussing tools that are designed to be weapons.

My point was that labeling certain gun as a "weapon of mass murder" when anything can be used to "mass murder" is asine and falls in line with using big scary words appealing to emotions instead of using facts.

I see your point. But these lawmakers are not simply banning "weapons of mass murder" They are attempting to define which weapons that are most capable of committing mass murders. Both sides are trying to draw the line reasonably and that's the cause of so much splitting hairs.

Fart_Machine:Amos Quito: The Second Amendment is the ONLY right that has teeth, and it is the ONLY right that gives The People the power to defend their interests.

If it ever came down to taking over the government at gunpoint we'd cease to be a democracy. But no, the rifle in your closet isn't holding back tyranny.

That rifle in the closest helps people defend themselves from more than the threat of tyranny, but since you brought it up, are you implying that syrian rebels aren't holding back tyranny? Are you also implying the fact our gov't has struggled with every ground forces encounter since WW2 will suddenly stop being the norm if it went after it's own citizens?

No, but neither is your one vote which doesn't even have the power to elect the President or pass laws because we live in a representative republic.

So, let's take away your dinky vote and only let certain people vote. Maybe only landowners with a degree in political science. Clearly they should know what to do, right?

And women are busy kids and stuff. They don't need votes.

After that, poor people are in debt, so no one with debt should get a vote. And really we want people to stick around, so only landowners with children should get a vote. And no Mexicans or Blacks or Jews or Italians or Irish, either, because reasons.

Oh hey, look at that, only this one guy gets to vote. Oh hey, look, he's elected himself president for life and minted a crown.

D'ya see how sacrificing rights to others goes? The rifle in your closet isn't defending freedom. However the freedom to own said rifle IS freedom and anyone who wants freedom should be fighting tooth and nail AGAINST all bans and infringements because we've already lost ground in the last 20 years. We have to stop giving up rights for any reason whatsoever and start takin' 'em back.

Ablejack:Amos Quito: And this is why the retention of our right under the Second Amendment is vital above all others: Once The People surrender their ability to physically resist, any "right" that you might THINK you retain - whether it be speech, assembly, habeas corpus, the right to VOTE... or whatever, WILL be at the whim of whichever cadre of Authoritarian asshats manages to seize power.The Second Amendment is the ONLY right that has teeth, and it is the ONLY right that gives The People the power to defend their interests.

That's not true. It is only your opinion that your right to bear arms protects you from tyranny moreso than your right to speech, vote, etc.

Right now I am able to TRY to defend my right to keep and bear arms by discussing the issue with you (speech), and by voting for those that I HOPE will work to defend that right.

Should I lose the RKBA, I will be able to continue to protest (speech) and to vote for someone who MIGHT work to get that right restored (unlikely) - at least as long as I am ALLOWED to do so by those in power.

AFTER I lose the RKBA, those in power might just find that much of the "speech" is irritating or threatening - that it tends to stir up trouble and sedition. They might also find, in their great wisdom, that The People really don't know what's best for them, and that voting no longer serves the interests of the regime.

Should some group of elitist oligarchs try to limit speech, or eliminate voting, The People have recourse - PROVIDED that the have retained the ability to resist. But once you've surrendered the ability to resist, you can toss the very CONCEPT of "rights" out the window.

/Authoritarians like their subjects like rapists like their women: Gullible, trusting, unarmed and defenseless

Silly Jesus:So pass a law, that isn't based in reality as far as effectiveness is concerned, for the sole purpose of it MAYBE being a bargaining chip for passing laws that might actually do some good?

The idea there was that the Dems could use the threat of a AWB (that they might not even really want as an actual AWB = minimum effectiveness + maximum resistance) in order to get political leverage to get movement on other related legislation that they do want that might be more effective in curbing gun deaths.

Yes, it's called politics.

In truth a lot of gun violence is linked to organized crime which is linked to a ridiculously self defeating, self corrupting, doomed-to-fail war on drugs. Toss in increased poverty, an inadequate social safety net and hard to access mental health care and you have a real problem that won't be solved any time soon. In the meantime pardon me for rolling my eyes at those ITT crying copious tears that banning one particular type of gun from the vast array available is somehow taking the 2nd amendment out behind the barn and shooting it Ole Yeller style.

The slippery slopers who cry out that soon they will have nothing left but a pea shooter and a home made sling shot to take on the Legion of Doom are laughable at best.

Dr. Goldshnoz:Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: The Second Amendment is the ONLY right that has teeth, and it is the ONLY right that gives The People the power to defend their interests.

If it ever came down to taking over the government at gunpoint we'd cease to be a democracy. But no, the rifle in your closet isn't holding back tyranny.

That rifle in the closest helps people defend themselves from more than the threat of tyranny, but since you brought it up, are you implying that syrian rebels aren't holding back tyranny? Are you also implying the fact our gov't has struggled with every ground forces encounter since WW2 will suddenly stop being the norm if it went after it's own citizens?

I'm not. Are any of you arguing that we don't have the power to take over the government with every election? I don't see this right as being less effective against tyranny than 'the rifle in the closet'.

Ablejack:Are any of you arguing that we don't have the power to take over the government with every election?

Actually, with the way we are locked into a duopoly of democrats and republicans, whose overall service has been to corporations and their biggest donors rather than to their actual constituents, pretty much yeah.

doglover:D'ya see how sacrificing rights to others goes? The rifle in your closet isn't defending freedom. However the freedom to own said rifle IS freedom and anyone who wants freedom should be fighting tooth and nail AGAINST all bans and infringements because we've already lost ground in the last 20 years. We have to stop giving up rights for any reason whatsoever and start takin' 'em back.

doglover:Fart_Machine: the rifle in your closet isn't holding back tyranny.

No, but neither is your one vote which doesn't even have the power to elect the President or pass laws because we live in a representative republic.

So, let's take away your dinky vote and only let certain people vote. Maybe only landowners with a degree in political science. Clearly they should know what to do, right?

And women are busy kids and stuff. They don't need votes.

After that, poor people are in debt, so no one with debt should get a vote. And really we want people to stick around, so only landowners with children should get a vote. And no Mexicans or Blacks or Jews or Italians or Irish, either, because reasons.

Oh hey, look at that, only this one guy gets to vote. Oh hey, look, he's elected himself president for life and minted a crown.

D'ya see how sacrificing rights to others goes? The rifle in your closet isn't defending freedom. However the freedom to own said rifle IS freedom and anyone who wants freedom should be fighting tooth and nail AGAINST all bans and infringements because we've already lost ground in the last 20 years. We have to stop giving up rights for any reason whatsoever and start takin' 'em back.

Ablejack:I'm not. Are any of you arguing that we don't have the power to take over the government with every election? I don't see this right as being less effective against tyranny than 'the rifle in the closet'.

Why would you give up either? Why not press the issue with the 9th and 10th amendments and ask for more explicit rights? The explicit right to purchase food products of ridiculous and unhealthy sizes if you should so desire, for example. The right for children to have Trick or Treating on Halloween. The right to board airplanes without some GED dropout pawing at your junk and stealing your carry on booze.

Dr. Goldshnoz:Ablejack: Are any of you arguing that we don't have the power to take over the government with every election?

Actually, with the way we are locked into a duopoly of democrats and republicans, whose overall service has been to corporations and their biggest donors rather than to their actual constituents, pretty much yeah.

Ha-HA! Now THAT is a good point! Also kind of our own fault to some degree. I think that education is the best way to address that issue. At homes as well as in schools. Which is of course an entirely different can of worms.

quatchi:The slippery slopers who cry out that soon they will have nothing left but a pea shooter and a home made sling shot to take on the Legion of Doom are laughable at best.

What's laughable is that you don't believe, even when they tell it to your face and have been fighting for it for 30 years, that some of these politicians will not stop until all you are left with is a pea shooter and home made slingshot.

Dr. Goldshnoz:That rifle in the closest helps people defend themselves from more than the threat of tyranny, but since you brought it up, are you implying that syrian rebels aren't holding back tyranny? Are you also implying the fact our gov't has struggled with every ground forces encounter since WW2 will suddenly stop being the norm if it went after it's own citizens?

You seem to be under the impression that there is some groundswell of support for a mass revolution. And explosives have caused us more headaches than small arms fire yet there isn't a lobby for them here.

doglover:Fart_Machine: the rifle in your closet isn't holding back tyranny.

No, but neither is your one vote which doesn't even have the power to elect the President or pass laws because we live in a representative republic.

So, let's take away your dinky vote and only let certain people vote. Maybe only landowners with a degree in political science. Clearly they should know what to do, right?

And women are busy kids and stuff. They don't need votes.

After that, poor people are in debt, so no one with debt should get a vote. And really we want people to stick around, so only landowners with children should get a vote. And no Mexicans or Blacks or Jews or Italians or Irish, either, because reasons.

Oh hey, look at that, only this one guy gets to vote. Oh hey, look, he's elected himself president for life and minted a crown.

D'ya see how sacrificing rights to others goes? The rifle in your closet isn't defending freedom. However the freedom to own said rifle IS freedom and anyone who wants freedom should be fighting tooth and nail AGAINST all bans and infringements because we've already lost ground in the last 20 years. We have to stop giving up rights for any reason whatsoever and start takin' 'em back.

Wow that's one hell of a strawman you built. But nice editing of the first part of my post there.

Farker Soze:What's laughable is that you don't believe, even when they tell it to your face and have been fighting for it for 30 years, that some of these politicians will not stop until all you are left with is a pea shooter and home made slingshot.

doglover:Ablejack: I'm not. Are any of you arguing that we don't have the power to take over the government with every election? I don't see this right as being less effective against tyranny than 'the rifle in the closet'.

Why would you give up either? Why not press the issue with the 9th and 10th amendments and ask for more explicit rights? The explicit right to purchase food products of ridiculous and unhealthy sizes if you should so desire, for example. The right for children to have Trick or Treating on Halloween. The right to board airplanes without some GED dropout pawing at your junk and stealing your carry on booze.

No. I do believe it is reasonable and constitutional to have limits (as we now do) on all of our rights. But I am not arguing that one is preferable to or more 'vital' than the other. That was your initial position (the primacy of the 2nd) that I disagreed with. For me they are all vital to what I consider the USA.

doglover:Farker Soze: What's laughable is that you don't believe, even when they tell it to your face and have been fighting for it for 30 years, that some of these politicians will not stop until all you are left with is a pea shooter and home made slingshot.

You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.

Perception is reality, and many crazy rightists believe that Obama is coming for their guns. Banning assault rifles will send these overly paranoid folks over the edge. They didnt buy those guns when he was elected and reelected for show. They plan on using them.

Then our military with our drones will conquer and pacify them, just like they did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.

Perception is reality, and many crazy rightists believe that Obama is coming for their guns. Banning assault rifles will send these overly paranoid folks over the edge. They didnt buy those guns when he was elected and reelected for show. They plan on using them.

Then our military with our drones will conquer and pacify them, just like they did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Those chickenhawk losers are not getting on their hoverround to fight, any time, ever. They don't give a fark about the constitution, you know what they want? To get to shoot someone legally, for the rush. They aren't going to fight for the constitution, or this country, or anything.

Farker Soze:doglover: Farker Soze: What's laughable is that you don't believe, even when they tell it to your face and have been fighting for it for 30 years, that some of these politicians will not stop until all you are left with is a pea shooter and home made slingshot.

You try to ban assault rifles and you will begin the second civil war.

Perception is reality, and many crazy rightists believe that Obama is coming for their guns. Banning assault rifles will send these overly paranoid folks over the edge. They didnt buy those guns when he was elected and reelected for show. They plan on using them.

Then our military with our drones will conquer and pacify them, just like they did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Those chickenhawk losers are not getting on their hoverround to fight, any time, ever. They don't give a fark about the constitution, you know what they want? To get to shoot someone legally, for the rush. They aren't going to fight for the constitution, or this country, or anything.

You need to throw a small dick comment and post a picture of a big fat guy with a gun to be complete. No one is going to take you seriously if you don't.